Obstruction of justice charge 'upped the ante' against Kent

Experts say it carries 20-year sentence and may be easier to prove than sex abuse

MARY FLOOD, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

Published 6:30 am, Thursday, January 8, 2009

Photo: JOHNNY HANSON, CHRONICLE

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

U.S. District Judge Sam Kent arrives at the federal courthouse on Wednesday. The section of federal law used in the latest charge against him was beefed up after the fall of Enron.

U.S. District Judge Sam Kent arrives at the federal courthouse on Wednesday. The section of federal law used in the latest charge against him was beefed up after the fall of Enron.

Photo: JOHNNY HANSON, CHRONICLE

Obstruction of justice charge 'upped the ante' against Kent

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

The government raised the stakes in the criminal case against U.S. District Judge Sam Kent, now accusing a man who swore to protect the system with thwarting it instead, legal experts said Wednesday.

They said the obstruction of justice charge added with sexual abuse allegations against Kent this week boosts the government's overall case in several ways. That new charge may be the easiest to prove and carries a hefty 20-year sentence. It also takes the matter beyond the "he said/she said" standoff of the sexual charges.

"Certainly the sexual charges are very serious. But obstruction of justice is a particularly serious charge when the accused is a federal judge," Hellman said. "If proved, his career — not just as a judge, but as a lawyer — would be over."

Kent, a jurist based in Galveston for most of his career, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to all six federal criminal charges against him. The judge, who still handles only certain civil cases out of a Houston office, has vociferously denied any wrongdoing.

Most Popular

He was indicted in August on three counts of abusive sexual contact or aggravated sexual abuse against a former case manager.

Potentially potent move

On Tuesday, the same grand jury indicted him on charges that he had abusive sexual contact and committed aggravated sexual abuse of another female employee, and that he obstructed justice by lying to a federal judicial panel investigating his conduct in 2007.

The obstruction charge specifically says that in a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals investigation into a complaint by Kent's case manager, Kent lied when he said his only unwelcome sexual advance against his second alleged victim was a spurned kiss.

"As he well knew defendant Kent had engaged in repeated unwanted sexual assaults of Person B," the indictment states, referring to the second employee.

Experts said having a second sexual victim stand up is potentially potent, but the obstruction case adds a different dimension.

Hellman said he thinks the obstruction case could be both easier for a jury to grasp and something a sentencing judge would find particularly difficult to forgive.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law school professor who writes on judicial ethics, said the obstruction law is very broad and therefore very dangerous. He noted Kent was charged under a section beefed up after the fall of Enron.

"Obstruction is not terribly difficult to prove. It's the Martha Stewart case — you can prove obstruction sometimes even when there is no underlying crime," Gillers said. "This gives the jury another way to evaluate him and the government another way to prove he is a criminal."

He suggested that the trial judge will likely want to try all the cases together, which could benefit the government by linking the various instances of wrongdoing in jurors' minds.

As of Wednesday, both prosecutor Peter Ainsworth and Kent's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said there had been no change in the Jan. 26 start date for the trial.

Not just 'he said/she said'

Ron Woods
, a Houston lawyer who formerly served as U.S. attorney here and who ran a 5th Circuit investigation into a Louisiana judge, agreed that the obstruction case could be a big boost to the government.

"We've gone from a 'he said/she said' and added not only a second 'she said' but a judge or lawyer investigator who will say, 'He lied to us,' " said Woods, noting that Kent may have made his statements to the judicial panel through a lawyer investigator.

Woods also noted that Kent has said in public that his relationship with his former case manager was consensual. Woods said Kent will not be able to use that defense in charges involving the second employee, because he told the judicial investigators the second woman spurned a kiss from him and he never tried other advances.

Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor and a criminal law professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said the trial judge in this case will have enormous discretion in deciding whether to sever the cases, take all six charges to trial this month or postpone it.

"The prosecutor would not have superseded the indictment unless they thought they had a chance to try them all together," Buell said.

Pros and cons

He and others noted that judges favor the efficiency of trying connected cases together, but they also frown on the government adding charges this close to a trial date.

Buell said the government may get several advantages by adding the obstruction charge. Prosecutors can now present testimony Kent gave to the judicial investigation, which may be used to hold him to a prior story or to show he has changed his testimony.

Now Playing:

Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who writes about judges, said though any felony conviction could lead to impeachment, an obstruction conviction is more likely to because of the violation of trust involved.